Among the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning fraud and the second instance judgment shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each punishment sentenced by the first instance court [two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes in the Market and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes in the Market and the crime of fraud] and the second instance (ten months of imprisonment with prison labor) are too unreasonable.

(b)each sentence sentenced to the first instance judgment of the prosecutor (unfairness) is too unfeasible and unfair;

2. The judgment on the grounds of appeal (as to the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, among the judgment of the first instance court), where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the first instance court determined the punishment against the defendant by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances favorable to the defendant and unfavorable circumstances as stated in its holding

The first instance court recognized that the defendant was properly determined in consideration of the main circumstances and argued that the defendant did not escape in this case since the investigation into this case was not commenced even before he departs from Cambodia around 2009 only until he/she departs from the Republic of Korea.

However, while the Defendant was staying in Cambodia, he did not return to the Republic of Korea until before the expiry of the term of validity of the passport in 2019, even though the investigation of this case was conducted in around 2011, and thus, the Defendant was staying in a foreign country and delayed the investigation and trial procedures for a prolonged period. As stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, the Defendant’s unfavorable sentencing condition is the sentencing condition against the Defendant.

There is no change in the sentencing conditions in the appellate court because there is no additional amount of compensation for the defendant in the trial.

In full view of these circumstances and various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, equity with accomplices, etc.